The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Obviously this is going to be a controversial one. There are both good arguments and bad arguments made on both sides of this discussion, as well as some concerns about COI raised. With that said, while there seems to be a numeric total in favour of keeping, there are some good analysis by those on the "delete" side which are not really refuted. It's impossible to fish a consensus out of all of this, and in the absence of a knockout argument from one side or the other a "no consensus" result is the only option. Lankiveil(speak to me)05:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient indicia of notability, COI editing, and unsourced BLP. Per previous AfD, Author has one book on Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing, and the book may meet NBOOK. Individual fails WP:BLPNOTE and WP:NAUTHOR. No evidence that he is a member of any Recognized Indian Tribe, nor that his claims as to the Rainbow gatherings are externally verifiable. All the rest of his publications are self-published or on small presses. Montanabw(talk)16:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. With all due respect to those who participated in the deletion review, as issues of Native status and cultural information vs misinformation can be confusing for those outside the communities, I don't think the users in the deletion review were sufficiently familiar with the history of this article or the subject manner, as it appears they took Horse Dancing(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log)'s word for it that unsourced misinformation that he keeps inserting into the article is true. The deletion review took place while many were on holiday, and was not announced at any wikiproject. I was unaware of it till recreation had basically been OKed (after Horse Dancing had already recreated it without any review). Horse Dancing is a SPA, editing only this article (except when he goes to linked articles and also deletes any criticsm or linkage with other ethnic imposters), and pushing to have it be an uncritical, unsourced, promotional piece full of misinformation on someone he seems to be connected to in a COI manner. The user clearly has some emotional investment in this. Horse Dancing has not declared COI, but as an aggressive, edit-warring SPA I think there's something going on here. Please note as well that Horse Dancing made a bizarre claim in the deletion review that this article was deleted because of racism against Native Americans. The thing is, Talbot/Manitonquat is white. He's a Rachel Dolezal - most notable for ethnic fraud. - CorbieV☊☼17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I try to stay out of commenting in both DRV and AfDs on the same article, but this article was literally cleared for recreation yesterday, after an extensive discussion during which a large number of good sources were identified. At the start of that discussion I was expecting to endorse the deletion, but as the discussion developed and also in my own research it became clear that the GNG is comfortably met.
In terms of the issues raised in the nomination:
"Insufficient indicia of notability" - the consensus at the just-closed-yesterday was that sufficient sources exist to show notability, and that the WP:GNG is therefore met.
COI editing - per policy, not an argument for deletion.
Unsourced BLP - technically true, but I will add in a few of the many sources identified in the DRV after I am done writing this, and then it will no longer be an unsourced BLP. - done - the article is no longer unsourced. 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Fails WP:BLPNOTE - I disagree, but it doesn't matter because it meets WP:GNG.
No evidence that he is a member of any Indian Tribe... is not an argument for deletion.
Has small-press or self-published books - doesn't matter, meets GNG.
As a side note, I am dismayed to see the alleged colour of someone's skin literally and explicitly being suggested as a reason to delete an article. Please, everyone, remember WP:BLP applies on this page too.
What is relevant here, Thparkth, is that he is claiming to be something he is not. Indian tribes get to define who is a member of their tribe under federal law in the US, and skin color has nothing to do with it. This person has no verifiable Native heritage that I can find, and therefore he appears to be a fraud. Montanabw(talk)19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this is relevant in a deletion discussion. Is there a specific claim in the article that you are taking issue with? If so, why not just fix it rather than deleting the article? Thparkth (talk)19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thparkth wanted it noted here that he and I have been reverting each other on the article today. He added three sources that I do not think are particularly useable. One is in Greek. The other is in Italian. En-wiki users shouldn't be assumed to be able to read these languages, or trust a machine translation, so we can't actually evaluate whether they source the content. However, the content they source is just that he told them he's involved in the Rainbow Gathering. A bigger problem with them, that is the main problem with the third source, is that the authors merely copied his official bio where he states he is Wampanoag. The source that is currently being used to falsely state he is a member of the Wampanoag is a passing quote from Talbot's book, and she simply repeats his bio. As the author did not do this basic research into her sources, she has no expertise in issues of Native identity. The source is usable for saying he's been quoted by someone writing about Millenial issues, but not about his history or qualifications thereof. I am going to delete the false claims of Native identity again, and add this to the talk page. - CorbieV☊☼22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an assumption here that the ethnicity claim is false. I don't see a reliable source that supports that (or indeed any source). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that mainstream, usually non-Native, writers are more likely to accept false claims and have access to publishing opportunities that Native critics simply do not have access to. Please read the comments and links below in "Move to draft." There is plenty of criticism out there, his genealogy is online, but it's been published largely in native forums that don't meet WP criteria for inline sourcing. - CorbieV☊☼22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information - the article does not contain an ethnicity claim, and if it ever did it was many revisions ago. Regardless, that would not be a concern for AfD. Thparkth (talk)22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - it's not actually about ethnicity, it's about citizenship in a sovereign nation. Subject is not a citizen of any federally-recognized Native American tribe. - CorbieV☊☼00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant to deletion criteria. And also unless you have a source to back that up, about as useful as an unsourced claim he *is* a citizen in a sovereign nation. To address a few points above, foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable. While English sources are preferred on English Wikipedia, it does not disqualify them if they are not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest folks looking over the research on the psiram site. Psiram uses a wiki format, but is a stable wiki that requires sign-in and approval of edits (so, not an "open wiki"), so while it's reliance on sources like en-wiki and Native message boards makes it unsuitable for inline sourcing use on en-wiki, it does meet potential inclusion criteria as an external link per the external link guidelines: psiram.com/en/index.php/Francis_Talbot[1] - CorbieV☊☼19:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a promotional article about a non-notable person making spurious claims. Not every human on the planet that has written a book requires a Wikipedia article, and if they do, let someone unconnected to them write it. Yuchitown (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Delete Analysis of cites (esp. for those who think this meets GNG) 1) Greek publication, but, as I will also say about 2) the German publication, this appears to have been a publicity tour and there's no reason to believe that these folks did due diligence (if you know about Germany you know that they are MAD for native Americans and their stories) 3) a minor Italian publication, not RS 4) no mention 5) name check 6) mention 7) a mention in a big book 8) a report from 1859, not available, but clearly not about this person who wasn't born until 1929 9) a few paragraphs in a book that appears to be self-published 10) 1 page - describes his program 11) photos of prisons, no relation to subject 12-13) no mention. LaMona (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG as per Thparkth. Arguments about his supposed ethnicity are irrelevant to deletion. The article does not make any, and even if it did, he could be a German Nazi claiming to be a Mohican and it would still not be relevant. Probably make him more notable actually... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I am new to the wiki experience and still working to familiarize myself with standards, I fail to see how Francis Talbot is notable enough to have a wiki page. Anyone has the ability to self-publish if they own a printer. That does not make them notable. A handful of articles makes him no more notable than the guy in town who regularly gets arrested for shoplifting and gets his name in the paper. His so called celebrity is so small nitched that it's inconcequential. The claims of success within the prison system have been proven to be grossly exaggerated and sources were provided to show that his claims of indigeneity are false. So he sells workshops to desperate Europeans. How does this make him noteworthy?Indigenous girl (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep in the light of the very recent consensus to allow re-creation of this article at DRV. Alternatively, if editors are permitted to keep listing articles at deletion discussions this rapidly, with one debate following closely on the heels of another, then I certainly have a number of nominations that I'd like to make.—S MarshallT/C10:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now checked out two sources closely, and they show independent, substantial book coverage of the topic. So this article passes WP:GNG based on that. Whether the person involved is making misleading claims about his roots is not relevant to the keeping of the page, and instead is related to the content on the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep - This AfD2 was listed 7 January 2016, one day after the DRV close on the topic. Montanabw what is your view regarding the 6 January 2016 DRV and why do you think it reasonable to list this AfD one day after Sandstein close the DRV as Recreation allowed? Did you discuss this with Sandstein before listing AfD2? AfD1 itself was close 26 December 2015 - 12 days before this AfD2 was listed. What substantial procedural errors or significant new information has come to light since either AfD1 or the DRV that would justify more process? What reliable sources do you have to assert that Manitonquat is claiming to be something he is not? If there are reliable sources to assert that Manitonquat is claiming to be something he is not, isn't the solution to include that in the Wikipedia article rather than try to force Wikipedia to use its article space to take a stand on your personal issue by using process to delete the article or at least compel others to address your issue? Alternatives to AfD2 would include requesting reconsideration at DRV2 or discussing with Sandstein whether the article at the time of list AfD2 meet the 'Recreation' standard of the DRV close. A better move at this point would be to withdraw this AfD nomination and relist 3 or so months after the DRV - 29 March 2016 or after if you think there is a need. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the Assonet Band is not federally recognized as a tribe, the Wampanoag Nation recognizes the Assonet Band as a Wampanoag state-recognized tribe of their nation and the Wikipedia article now reflects that. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee, the DRV did not consult or notify the people involved in the original discussion; the whole thing was a done deal before anyone even knew it happened. Worse, the DRV folks took the COI article creator's word at face value and didn't dig into the sources. The reasons for deletion were adequate and the sources provided since fail the neutral, third-party RS. First off, the Assonet Band is not a federally recognized tribe and only formed any kind of government in 1990... that is a BIG DEAL, not a minor aside. if a bunch of people want to play Native, that's their choice, but there is no unified single "Wampanoag Nation" -- each tribal group determines its own membership standards and federal recognition includes a deep and thorough look at a groups' history and culture. To the extent that "Manitonquat" is an "elder" of this unrecognized group, that doesn't establish his notability at all. These plastic shamans are the bane of native people trying to retain and preserve their authentic cultures. His one book might be notable; he isn't. Montanabw(talk)04:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as pointed out above by multiple people, none of that is relevant to a deletion discussion unless the article is obviously containing false information (it's not, it's disputed, and even then not very well). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep First, apologies for any irregularity in commencing the DRV. Probably I made the faut pas. I'm new to this process, have never been involved in a DRV / AfD discussion before. However belatedly, I'll try to better familiarize myself about this & mend any error that I can.
I'm posting a screenshot of my edit of Jan 7. Please note some of the citations included, which have since been deleted; (presumably by some zealous editors who here claim that I provided no citations.)
File:Manitonquat - Wikipedia REVISION 010716.png
I'd like to hear explained the deletion of these citations:
www.ic.org/wiki/manitonquat(Bio article on the website of American network of intentional communities: acknowledging Manitonquat as a notable influencer, involved in the development of intentional communities in the US and other countries, over decades.)
Columbia Documentary History of Religion in America Since 1945, Columbia University Press (includes extensive interview with Manitonquat regarding Native American influence on New Age spirituality, and his involvement in founding the Rainbow Gatherings.)
Profiles in Wisdom: Native Elders Speak About the Earth by Steve McFadden
www.circlewayfilm.com Is there some reason why link to an upcoming documentary feature about Manitonquat's thousands of followers has been deleted?
Christian Science Monitor article, Sept 17, 1987, page 1 http://postimg.org/image/403v9q1st/"How the Founding Fathers took a page from the Iroquois book" by J Denis Glover Interview with Slow Turtle, "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation and executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs" and Medicine Story, who officiates with Slow Turtle at a ceremony honoring Native American ancestors and the Iroquois League, for their influence in the "foundation for the US Constitution." Manitonquat/Medicine Story is quoted at equal length with Slow Turtle and is clearly a close associate of the "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation."
It would seem that any evidence which documents Manitonquat's tribal affiliation or notability is what some editors think should be deleted.
There is certainly some shrill emotional tone here: largely from those instigating a second AfD which has been acknowledged here as extraordinary and contrary to policy.
It seems appropriate to question what could possibly have motivated "bizarre" deletions of independent, authoritative sources, supporting notability; documenting that this author is an acknowledged authority on Native American culture & spirituality, a close associate of Wampanoag spiritual leadership, a prominent organizer of intentional communities, and of the Rainbow Gatherings since their inception.
It's an object lesson to see how the history of a man so well-known could be confused, obscured, or made to disappear in this context.
Since I have been made the subject of some personal comment here, I might point out that I don't need to ask the ethnicity of anyone who hits the ceiling & screams bloody murder at mention of the word "racism". They're always white. Horse Dancing (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The User:Horse Dancing account was exclusively created to discuss the Manitonquat article. This article was clearly created as promotional material with a conflict of interest. If it were a musical group, it would have been deleted in a heartbeat. While not as common as promoting unknown bands, individuals attempting to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their books, and their spurious claims to a Native heritage does happen frequently enough that it's a routine. I am Native and know numerous actual medicine people IRL. They never refer to themselves as medicine people. The state-recognized group Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation is an "intertribal" heritage group that included non-Wampanoag members, so membership to this group is no proof of Native heritage. If this article fails the AfD and stays put, neither you nor anyone else will be able to use to bolster false claims. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not press releases, promotional material, or self-published material including blogs. Yuchitown (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
I still hear no answer to the admittedly unanswerable independent, authoritative sources on Manitonquat's work (posted above on this page, by me, today's date.) Of course when some can't win an argument, they resort to personal attack. But that's forgetting a worthy axiom, attack the post, not the poster.
By the way, sorry, you guess wrong. If this extraordinary, misguided, & unjust wrangle over the Manitonquat page will ever get over itself, I might get a chance to do anything else around here. There is nothing the least unusual in someone starting an account to work on a particular area (Native American), because they're inspired to do so by a topic they happen to know & care about, which is poorly recorded on Wikipedia, and/or clearly vandalized / libeled.
If you must know, I attended the national Rainbow Gatherings from 1982 through 1995. Manitonquat was present at every one I attended; (for many years unique in being the only person who'd been to every one in history.) He was quite prominently in evidence every year as a facilitator, elder, organizer, who did not first attend in 1982 like myself, but had been there for a decade before I heard of them. He was one of the organizers on the very first in 1972(which was originally planned as a one-off event.) He stood at the welcome gate to greet the first arrivals, and was one of the clean-up crew who decided try to turn it into an annual event.
I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling. In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, including up to a hundred people; all thrashing out together, with total strangers, incredibly emotional, complicated safety issues. Where people sat together and tried to re-invent a new way for society to deal with violent offenders who endanger the community; other than with more violence & punishment.
This "Rainbow way" of doing things is the basis of what he now teaches to communities all over the world as the "Circle Way". (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.)
I don't expect my personal testimony to be considered as an authoritative source (although the point is arguable); but you see my interest not merely academic. Nor is it motivated by personal gain. I'm just trying to repair libelous vandalism against a good person, a well-known humanitarian who's spent his whole life trying to help people, never got rich, and isnt' trying to.
Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.
Robbing Native American people of their native identity has been a key tactic of cultural genocide since time immemorial. Native children were sent to schools where they were forbidden to speak their language, practice their religion, sing their songs, etc. They were given Anglo names & forbidden to use their native names. Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names.
Targeting Native American writers, erasing all citations about their Native heritage, shrilly denying the basis of their ideas in Native American traditions, is just more of a piece with this sort of anti-Native agenda. Not that I'm accusing anyone in particular here of consciously pursuing such an agenda. I think everyone's contribution to this discussion speaks clearly enough for itself without assistance from me.
Sincerely thankful to all who have taken part so far. Especially those who have researched sources, urged impartiality, and decried extraordinary emotional agendas. Horse Dancing (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Dancing(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) "I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, combining traditional practices and Re-evaluation Counseling." There are accounts on line about people participating in sweats withTalbot at Rainbow Gatherings where they dropped acid. This goes directly against traditional cultural teachings and protocol.Horse Dancing(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) "Native American ancestry is practically never recorded in official "genealogies" of any kind. So it means nothing that someone can produce such a record, which shows no evidence of Indian names." This is simply not true and undermines tribal sovereignty. Your ideology perpetuates assimilation and indigeneity based on the desire of the individual rather that the community. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COI Admission by SPA Horse Dancing(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log): "I myself was a crowd security specialist, and took part in designing Rainbow security arrangements at several Gatherings. Over the years, I heard Manitonquat speak many times. In the evening enjoyed his performances of traditional Native American medicine stories. Sat in sweat lodges which he led, ... In the wake of a security incident, I sat in councils with him, that went on for days, ... (Incidentally, I've never read any of his books, except to give them a cursory glance over.) ... I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself"[2] (bolding added). At the very least, there is a high probability that Horse Dancing is editing on the subject's behalf. I think there is also a reasonable probability that this is an autobio. Either way, Horse Dancing is too close to this subject to be creating, recreating and editing this article and AfD. - CorbieV☊☼23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GRAPESWP:SVTWP:REPEATWP:WABBITSEASONUser:CorbieVreccan has in recent days been warned by User:Horse Dancing for Vandalism, subtle and otherwise; also concerned in report to Administrator Notice Board:Biographies for vandalism to page in question, and instigating an edit war immediately following a DRV whose outcome was contrary to said user's vote. Also has been notified in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thparkth that extraordinary emotion demonstrated in this debate suggests advisability that User:CorbieVreccan could, in this case, stand to back off & take a few deep breaths (if I may paraphrase.)
In seeking a balanced view, direct experience of the subject cannot be entirely silenced and disallowed, in favour of ignorant prejudice, or passionate hostility based on complete lack of direct experience. It is certainly significant that the person rushing to shout "COI" is the one who has been previously been named in vandalism allegation. WP:SVT I allege that this COI complaint by User:CorbieVreccan is retaliatory User:Sandstein User:JReferee User:Thparkth
As for COI, my acquaintance with the person who is the topic of the article in question by no means amounts to COI. He is neither family, client, employer, nor any other connection mentioned in COI policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I have no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the outcome of the discussion. The direct experience of his work which I detailed in the spirit of complete candour explicitly amounts to no more than what a hundred others also saw, in the course of his public appearances. My account also explicit that this occurred most recently in the 1990s, over twenty years ago. Horse Dancing (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Horse Dancing stated,"Anyone who really cares enough about the topic to inform themselves in a detailed way before posting here, might recall that I offered to make available a letter from Manitonquat himself, explaining what he knows about how the controversy about his ancestry got started.", if this relationship occurred over 20 years ago how is it possible for him to retain a current letter from Talbot regarding controversy. It's clear to me that the relationship has been maintained. Rainbow defines themselves as a family so this in itsself creates a familial relationship. User:Horse Dancing neglected to disclose his conflict of interest. WP:EXTERNALREL "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Common sense dictates that User:Horse Dancing has provided security for and participated in ceremony with Talbot and is in close enough contact with Talbot that he is able to provide a statement from Talbot himself. I see his editting as conflicting, from his own statements and content inclusion he is attempting to maintain a positive only entry regarding Talbot. He states he created a wiki ID specifically to edit Native American topics. All of this causes me great concern.Indigenous girl (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is "Articles for deletion", not "Editors for discussion". Even if Horse Dancing turned out to be Manitonquat himself (which I don't think anyone is claiming), that would not in itself be a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Thparkth (talk)15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Unfortunately were I to weigh in, I would have to side with keep. WP guidelines of notability do not require that anyone's notability be honorable. However, that being said, NPOV requires that IF the claims of native heritage are going to be in the article, claims that his nativeness is refuted must also be there. He appears to be a notable fraud, who meets GNG. I find it interesting that German WP has chosen to remove him from their article [3] but English WP's guidelines which have nothing to do with academic standards of evidence, show that he has been mentioned, over time, with significant coverage the only question is how reliable are those mentions and whether they are based on self-generated promotion (thus the fallacy of using secondary sources to prove anything). SusunW (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the most part. (Also DEWP is frankly much better at some things than ENWP) However going by ENWP's rules there are just not RS out there that we would put in a BLP to refute someones ethnicity. They would need to be the strongest of sources to avoid being reverted on sight. What there *is* consists of blogs, mailing list posts and tabloid gossip (often related to associated organisations rather than the subject themselves). The other big problem is of course, this is one area where what ENWP classes as a reliable source is heavily biased in favour of white western publishers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it back to mainspace. Please do not move the article while this discussion is open. Once a consensus is reached and the discussion is closed, then it can be moved if it is not deleted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some objections I'd like to respond to, and just able to get round to now:
Indigenous girl Re: official genealogy records All I'm saying is that official government records cannot be relied on to accurately record native ancestry.
You are right in decrying racist agendas as you see them, and I support you in that. But please take it easy on demonizing others as the enemy of native people just because they have a different outlook on the issues than yourself. Keeping the public confused on these issues is part of the racist agenda. Many are confused on these issues. Keeping the public poorly informed on these issues is also the racist agenda. Many are poorly informed. So many people make mistakes which further racist agendas, while trying to do their best to be fair. Even people who are quite well-informed.
Regarding your comment that I have COI based on family: Many Native Americans habitually refer to each other as "brother" "sister" "uncle". In fact, in Native American spirituality, everything in the world is referred to as "all my relations". So does that mean that all Native Americans are prohibited from editing this because of a family COI? Let's use common sense.
As for contention that I "wants a positive only article": I want to see deletion of false libelous claims that this man is an unprincipled fraud; for which there is no evidence except a lot of shrill insistence based largely on attack sites. If you consider this an unreasonable, unbalanced "poz only" on my part, I must point out that there are countless articles of notable people that accuse the topic of no fraud.
SusunW Thanks for your comment re "fallacy of secondary sources to prove anything." However erroneously, it's a noble effort in all editors here who mean well, this pursuit of sorting fact from fiction. Which this page proves can be no mean feat.
Certainly there is some fallacy in attitude that many interviews, in authoritative sources, are not reliable evidence of notability. [1] (This article referenced above, but perhaps you didn't get a chance to click it.)
re "apparently notable fraud": Denial of his Native American ancestry is pure rumor, emanating largely from attack sites. There is no relevant documentation which believably supports it. It's acquired plausibility in this debate only because a lot of hotheads keep saying it. "We all say it so it must be true" is not relevant.
Comment:No conjecture. I took the time to look up the family history which shows his illustrious English ancestry on his father's side going back to the 1660s in Massachusetts. His were some of the founding ancestors of the area and very prominant. I verified the printed sources with census records, which also do not confirm native ancestry. I read the Pease Report. I read the Boston Globe interview in which he acknowledges that he was an actor and a playwright who became discouraged and took on a native personna. Due diligence, not rumor. However, totally irrelevant to the discussion here at AfD. SusunW (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the principle of considering the risk of harm in case of error. I would like each & every participant here to consider, (especially those so quick to accept a flimsy fraud claim, while very picky about accepting abundant evidence to the contrary): what is the risk of harm if you are wrong? I'd like everyone to imagine just for a moment the fraud claim proving entirely spurious. Wouldn't we feel silly then? How much damage has been done then, wittingly or unwittingly? Horse Dancing (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Horse DancingNot all indigenous people believe in the "we are all related" concept that has been co-opted and used extensively out of context. My COI concern is that you have maintained a relationship with the individual in question. I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that you were forth-coming in this regard. However the facts that you were involved with religious(spiritual) excercises with him for a large block of time, that you supported his position during heated conflict resolution and provided security for him and that you are currently in contact with him in a sense that you offered to provide direct communication from him regarding controversies makes me doubt your objectivity. There is nothing wrong with wanting to support somebody that you hold in esteem though this is not the forum in which to do this.
Regarding the genealogy of this particular individual. I did link to the biography of his great grandfather and I believe the Earle Report and there was no reflection of ties to Wampanoag community. There is also the Pease Report which I don't believe to be available on line and the Mashpee Aquinnah Census[2] as well as documents pertaining to the Guardians of Indian Plantations. If his family is not included in any of these documents they are either not Native or they assimilated so far back in history that no records remain. What most people fail to understand is that when it comes to early reports these were made at a time when familial and community connections were impportant and people regularly included members who may not live within community yet maintained community connection. This is reflected in the early reports where individuals are listed who live outside of the physical community. I am sure you do not want to hear this and that it is also difficult to grasp. I understand if you want to continue to deny this and stand firm on your position. Rather than continue to muddy up this and the subject at hand's talk page I would like to request that we take any further discussion to our own personal talk pages.Indigenous girl (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Indigenous girl Thanks for all that. That's very informative. Very good points. Yet I fear you still rush too quickly to judgement that you couldn't be wrong.
I agree with you to continue this at my talk page. Look forward to seeing you there.
However, I must respond here to what you have posted here which concerns my integrity.
I don't know where you got "large block of time". That's nowhere in what I said. I attended a couple of sweat lodges which were public events attended by many others.
You say I "supported his position in a heated conflict". If you mean the councils involving a hundred people I mentioned, I don't know how you can conjecture what position I took in relation to him. You misstate also that I "provided security for him." I didn't say I was his bodyguard. I said I was an organizer on event security at a gathering of thousands. You seem to go a long way to twist everything I said into some intimate relationship to him. I don't know if you've been to a Rainbow Gathering, but it's hardly an intimate setting. There are thousands of people there. As to his being a public figure whom anyone can contact thru his website, I hope you took the trouble to read my earlier reply above, on that question.
I will allow that I may be less than entirely objective. But I don't think my objectivity, as demonstrated in my posts here, can be seen to be much more impaired than many others', who've seemed far more emotional & unreasonable than me. Horse Dancing (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on balance, because 1/ there is some quite solid material: the children's book The Children of the Morning Light : Wampanoag tales published by Macmillan, and in 344 libraries according to WorldCat [4]. A number of reviews s have been already cited, and there is also one in Publisher's Weekly al o [5] . They all need to be added.
2/ we have the concept of cultural bias, which means that in certain areas where there is difficulty in finding materials, we have generally been much more flexible about meeting the formal criteria.
3/ the promotionalism can be decreased -- I just now made an edit to do so.
4/ the decision at Del Rev followed much too soon by this re-nomination. A greater time should be allowed before an AfD2. The decision was allow recreation, not just relist. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.